The lie of "compromise" in anti-gun legislation.

It seems that whenever the anti-constitutionalist element wants to create more "gun control", they claim that their plan is a "compromise". What that really boils down to, in most cases, is "We'll let some people keep some guns". The "compromise" is always one sided, and provides no value for law abiding gun owners.

A real compromise would give something back to American citizens in return for taking away our rights. As it is, “gun control” does not reduce crime or improve public safety, and only serves to deny freedoms to the people.

How about this for a compromise – have background checks – “free”, “instant” background checks with no record of why the check is being made – and used for gun transfers, voting, employment eligibility verification, government benefits verification, etc. (because we actually do need to ensure that only law abiding citizens get access to these things). In return for us allowing such intrusions into our freedoms, we would – at a minimum – like to have the ability to buy or sell firearms in any state, and use CCW or other permits from any state in any state. This means that a Utah carry license would be valid in California, New York, Chicago, or Washington D.C..

We would also like for guns and ammunition to be exempt from sales taxes – as such taxes are an infringement in our ability to exercise our rights. To sweeten the deal, maybe we could also have a tax credit for citizens who attend firearms safety training and who can show that they practice firing their firearms a number of times each year.

When we are offered things like this in return for giving up our 2nd, and 4th amendment rights on the background check issue, then – and only then – is there any real compromise on the table.